Legal advice relied upon to fast-track plans for a contentious AFL stadium was politicised and not as independent as claimed, opponents say.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Tasmania's government on Sunday announced it would introduce legislation to parliament to speed up the approval process for a new stadium at Hobart's Macquarie Point.
The construction of a 23,000-seat roofed stadium at the site was a condition of the state being granted an AFL licence for entry into the competition in 2028.
The stadium was previously set to be assessed as a project of state significance - an early April planning commission draft report outlined cost overruns to its $775 million price tag.
In introducing special legislation, Tasmania's Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff said he had no faith in the report, partly based on legal advice that it had acted outside of scope.
Documents made public on Monday after requests by the Greens, who oppose the stadium, show government correspondence with the law firm that provided the advice.
Greens MP Vica Bayley said the legal advice was a "team effort" between government departments, the law firm and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation.
The documents show a change from the head of the premier's department was adopted in the final version.
"These documents show the so-called 'robust legal advice' the ... government has relied on to dismiss the planning commission's report was in fact no such thing," Mr Bayley said.
Not all the correspondence relating to the advice has been released.
A government spokeswoman said the text cited by the Greens was a draft representation and the correspondence was normal practice.
"The suggested amendments were to add examples around the broader economy being explored in the assessment only," she said.
"This was intended to provide clarity. It does not relate to the principal matter being raised."
The development corporation, which was also involved in the correspondence, said discussions between consultants and clients were normal.
"The final advice provided is up to the law firm," a spokesman said.
"We provided local context and commented on language. This is normal practice when seeking this type of advice.
"To be clear, the matters raised in the advice were identified by the legal team."
According to the correspondence, the law firm gave legal advice questioning the April report, saying it had made findings too early and looked at an area too large.
The final legal advice made public claimed the report contained errors of law and should be given "limited weight".
The fast-track legislation, expected to be voted on mid-year, will pass the lower house with the support of the Labor opposition.
Its passage in the upper house appears a little trickier, as the two major parties do not hold a majority of seats.
Australian Associated Press
